<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (2) TMI 481 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338781</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was unavailable where goods were manufactured and cleared under another person&#039;s brand name. The franchisee licence required prominent use of the trade mark, and the invoice descriptions, customer statements, and brand stickers showed the goods were sold as branded goods in the market. On that basis, the goods were treated as bearing, or being sold by reference to, the brand name of another person, and the demand was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 481 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338781</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was unavailable where goods were manufactured and cleared under another person&#039;s brand name. The franchisee licence required prominent use of the trade mark, and the invoice descriptions, customer statements, and brand stickers showed the goods were sold as branded goods in the market. On that basis, the goods were treated as bearing, or being sold by reference to, the brand name of another person, and the demand was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>